advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Dying declaration - if not died can be considered as sec.164 statement can be used for contradiction etc., under sec.157 ,sec.155- provided - a dying declaration - cum - sec.164 statement can not be called as full statement of witness - after regain, her full sec.161 statement was recorded - Apex court held no wrong = Veer Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s) versus State of U.P. .. Respondent(s) = Published in / cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41065

Dying declaration - if not died can be considered as sec.164 statement can be used for contradiction etc., under sec.157 ,sec.155- provided - a dying declaration - cum - sec.164 statement can not be called as full statement of witness  - after regain, her full sec.161 statement was recorded - Apex court held no wrong =
In fact PW 4 Harbans  Kaur  in  her
           testimony before the Court has clearly stated as to why she  has
           given a limited answer to the Magistrate.  Further   it is not a
           dying declaration since she survived and it is only a  statement
           under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which can be used under Section
           157 of the  Evidence Act for the purpose  of  corroboration  and
           under Section 155 of the Act for the purpose  of  contradiction.
           This statement did not relate to the entire occurrence.  It must
           be borne in mind that she had witnessed the brutal murder of all
           her family members by the appellants and  other  accused  during
           the occurrence and when she was in  a  state  of  shock  in  the
           hospital she had given  answer  to  the  -question  put  by  the
           Magistrate. After regaining her health when she was examined  by
           the Investigation Officer, she has stated the entire  occurrence
           naming the assailants and the attack made by them with weapons.


Thereafter, the High Court by common  judgment  dated  1.10.2007
           commuted death sentence recorded against the  -accused Nos.1  to
           5 to one of life imprisonment  and  upheld  the  conviction  and
           sentence imposed by the Sessions Court against them for all  the
           charges by dismissing the appeals in Criminal Appeal  No.749  of
           1996 and Criminal Appeal No.761 of 1996.  It also dismissed  the
           State appeal preferred challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.
           6 to 8.   Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence accused  Nos.
           1 to 5 have preferred the present appeals.

Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and  quality  of
           evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity  or  plurality  of
           witnesses.  It is not the number of witnesses  but  -quality  of
           their evidence which is important as  there  is  no  requirement
           under  the  Law  of  Evidence  that  any  particular  number  of
           witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact.   Evidence
           must be weighed and not counted.  It is quality and not quantity
           which determines the adequacy of evidence as has  been  provided
           under Section 134 of the Evidence Act.  As a  general  rule  the
           Court can and may act on  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness
           provided he is wholly reliable.
                                                   
REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).256-257 OF 2009


Veer Singh & Ors.                      ..                  Appellant(s)



                                   versus



State of U.P.                          ..                  Respondent(s)



                               J U D G M E N T



C. NAGAPPAN, J.



        1. These two appeals are preferred against the common  judgment  of
           the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad  in  Criminal  Appeal
           No.749  of  1996  and  Criminal  Appeal  No.761  of  1996  dated
           1.10.2007.



        2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 1996  are   accused
           Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.761 of  1996
           is the accused No.5, in the Sessions Case No.72 of 1985,  on the
           file of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Muzafarnagar, and  they
           were tried along  with  three  other  accused  for  the  alleged
           offences under Sections 147,148, 307 read with Section 302  read
           with Section 149 and Section 452 of Indian Penal Code.  Sessions
           Court found accused Nos. 6 to 8 not guilty of  the  charges  and
           acquitted them and at the same time convicted accused Nos.1 to 5
           for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149  IPC  and
           sentenced them to death, subject to  confirmation  by  the  High
           Court; convicted them for the offences under  Section  307  read
           with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to  undergo  rigorous
           imprisonment for a period of 5 years;  convicted  them  for  the
           offence under Section 452 IPC  and  sentenced  them  to  undergo
           rigorous imprisonment for a period of  4  years,  and  had  also
           convicted Veer Singh, A-1, Takal Singh A-2 and  Balkar Singh  A-
           5,  for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them  to
           undergo RI for a period of  2  years  and  had  convicted  Amrik
           Singh, A-3 and Kamir Singh,  A-4, for the offence  under Section
           147 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for
           a period of one year.



        3. Aggrieved by the conviction  and  sentence  accused  No.1  to  5
           preferred appeals being  Criminal  Appeal  No.749  of  1996  and
           Criminal Appeal No. 761of 1996 and a Reference  regarding  death
           penalty was also made  to the High  Court.  Besides   the  State
           also  preferred  an  appeal  being  Appeal  No.1341   of   1996,
           challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.6 to  8.
The  Appeals
           and Reference were heard together and  the  High  Court  by  its
           common judgment dated 4.12.1997  allowed  the  Criminal  Appeals
           filed by accused Nos.1 to  5  and  rejected  the  Reference  and
           acquitted them of  all  the  charges.   It  also  dismissed  the
           Criminal Appeal preferred by the State.



        4. Challenging the said judgment the State of U.P. preferred  Civil
           Appeal Nos.727 – 729 of 1998 and this Court  allowed the appeals
           and remitted the matter to the High  Court  for  fresh  hearing.
           Thereafter, the High Court by common  judgment  dated  1.10.2007
           commuted death sentence recorded against the  -accused Nos.1  to
           5 to one of life imprisonment  and  upheld  the  conviction  and
           sentence imposed by the Sessions Court against them for all  the
           charges by dismissing the appeals in Criminal Appeal  No.749  of
           1996 and Criminal Appeal No.761 of 1996.  It also dismissed  the
           State appeal preferred challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.
           6 to 8.   Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence accused  Nos.
           1 to 5 have preferred the present appeals.



        5. The prosecution  case  as  it  discerned  from  the  records  is
           briefly, as follows :

      Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh  were  residents  of  village  Dongpura,
whereas  Gurdip  Singh  was  resident  of  adjacent  village  Varnau.    On
13/14.7.1984, at about midnight Gurdip Singh heard firing  and  cries  from
the houses of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and armed with his licensed  gun
he along with Jassa Singh and Hazoor Singh  moved  towards  the  house   of
Shisha Singh.   In the moonlight and the light of the torch he  saw  Kartar
Singh and his son Mahender Singh standing on the roof top of the  house  of
Shisha Singh holding gun and country made  -pistol  and  Kartar  Singh  was
shouting aloud to his sons Mahendra Singh, Lakkha Singh, Ginder  Singh  and
Sinder Singh to eliminate the  whole family of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh
and that none should escape away. They fired several gun shots  and  Gurdip
Singh withdrew himself back and at that time Harbans Kaur  wife  of  Shisha
Singh escaped from the house with injuries  and  came  and  told  him  that
Kartar Singh and his four sons accompanied by all the four sons of Sampuran
Singh and Balkar Singh had killed all the family members  of  Shisha  Singh
and Mohar Singh and sought help from him. Harbans Kaur was taken to a safer
place and thereafter Gurdip Singh along with  Jaswant  Singh  went  to  the
Jhinjhana Police Station and gave an oral complaint which  was  reduced  to
writing by  PW14  Head-Mouri  and  First  Information  Report  came  to  be
registered at about 4.15 a.m. on 14.7.1984.  The police party rushed to the
place of occurrence and S.J. Mohd. Akhtar, S.O., Jhinjhana Police  Station,
took up the investigation and sent the injured to the hospital.   He seized
 material objects from the place of occurrence and conducted inquest on the
dead bodies and -prepared inquest reports and sent  the  bodies  for  post-
mortem examination.



        6. PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma examined  Harbans  Kaur  at  6.30  a.m.  on
           14.7.1984 in the  Civil  Hospital  Shamli  and  found  following
           injuries:

            “i)  Lacerated wound measuring 11 cms x 1.5  cms  x   bone  deep
           slanting on the left side of head 6.5 cms  above  from  the  left
           ear.  Wound had been bleeding.

            ii)  Lacerated wound measuring 1.2 cms x 0.5 cm x bone  deep  on
           the left ear, bleeding.

            iii) Bluish mark in red colour in the  area of 7 cms x 1 cms  on
           the  left cheek in between the injury No.2 and 4

            iv)  Lacerated would measuring  3 cms x 0.7 cms x across through
           the right cheek.   Lacerated  wound measuring 3 cms x 0.3  cms  x
           bone deep on the portion of jaw opposite to it.

            v)   Red bluish marks in the area of 28 cms x  1.5  cms  on  the
           third upper portion of back on both side of the backbone.

            vi)  Many lacerated wounds in the area of 37 cms  x  28  cms  of
           chest and abdomen on the frontal portion, out of these  the large
           wound was measured as 3 cms -

           x 0.7 cm x depth was not measured  and  the  smallest  wound  was
           measuring 0.2 cms x o.2 cm x muscle deep.  Some article like hard
           pellet felt in  the injury. Blackening  was  present  nearby  the
           injury.

            vii) Lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x  0.7  cm  x  muscle  deep,
           nearby to it, skin has peeled towards the inner side of the  left
           thigh.

            viii)  Abrasion in the area of 5 cms x 1.5  cm  on  the  frontal
           portion and left side of the left knee.”




The Doctor opined that injury No.1 could have been  caused  by  sharp-edged
weapon while injury no.6 could have been caused by a fire arm.



       7. Dr. N.K. Taneja (PW 1),  Dr. R.K. Vats (PW 2),  Dr.  B.K.  Mishra
          (PW 3),  Dr. Suresh Chand (PW 10), Dr. R.S. Kasana  (PW  11)  and
          Dr. D.C. Mohar(PW  12)  conducted  autopsy  on  thebodies  of  12
          victims.  They opined that the death occurred to all the  victims
          due to shock of hemorrhage as a result of  ante-mortem  injuries.
          Exh. 1 to 6 and 9 to 14 are the post-mortem  certificates  issued
          by the Doctors.



        8. During the investigation the Investigating Officer arrested  the
           accused and on the information furnished by them made recoveries
           of the weapons and other material objects under Mahazar  (Fard).
           After completing investigation he filed charge-sheet against all
           the accused totaling 13.   One  of  the  accused  died  and  the
           Sessions Court framed charges against the  accused  persons  and
           during the trial  the  prosecution  examined  18  witnesses  and
           marked 93 Exhibits.  During trial four accused  absconded.   The
           Sessions Court examined accused Nos.1 to  8  under  Section  313
           Cr.P.C.   All of them denied the testimony  of  the  prosecution
           witnesses and stated that they have been falsely implicated  due
           to enmity.  The Sessions Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 5 for
           the charges as indicated above and acquitted accused Nos.  6  to
           8.  On appeal the High Court acquitted all the  accused  and  on
           further appeal by the State this Court remitted the matter  back
           to the High Court  for  reconsideration.   Thereafter  the  High
           Court  has  passed  the  impugned  judgment.  Aggrieved  by  the
           conviction and sentence of the High Court  accused  Nos.1  to  5
           have preferred these appeals.



        9.  Mr.  R.S.Sodhi,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants
           submitted that Harbans Kaur  is  the  sole  eye-witness  to  the
           occurrence and in her earlier statement  before  the  Magistrate
           within a few hours of the occurrence, she has told that Surender
           Singh has fired gun shots at her and Surender, Mahender,  Jinder
           who are sons of Kartar Singh were involved and thereafter in her
           statement given before the I.O. in addition to  the  above  said
           accused persons she named  the  appellants/accused  Nos.1  to  5
           amongst the assailants and,  therefore,  her  testimony  is  not
           reliable, and lot of material improvements were  introduced  and
           there is no motive attributable to the  present  appellants  and
           it’s a midnight occurrence  and  in  the  absence  of  effective
           source of light it is doubtful as to whether the  witness  could
           have recognized the assailants  and  the  appellants  have  been
           falsely implicated in the case.



       10. Per contra Mr. Ratnakar Das, Senior Advocate appearing  for  the
           respondent contended that  Harbans Kaur was seriously injured in
           the occurrence and only one question was asked by the Magistrate
           as to who caused injury to her  and  in  her  reply  -she  named
           Surender Singh and the other sons of Kartar Singh and it related
           to a part of occurrence so far as the injured is  concerned  and
           did not in any way relate to rest of the  occurrence  and  after
           gaining full consciousness in her  statement  given  before  the
           Investigation Officer she has narrated the entire occurrence and
           the names of all the accused, and in the  FIR  which  came  into
           being immediately after the occurrence based  on  the  complaint
           given by Sardar Gurdip Singh,  the  names  of  all  the  accused
           persons are found mentioned  and there was also motive  for  the
           occurrence.



       11. Harbans Kaur is the wife of Shisha Singh and the dwelling  house
           of Mohar Singh was adjacent to her house. PW 4 Harbans  Kaur  in
           her testimony has stated that on the  fateful  night  she  along
           with her sons Joginder Singh and Jassa Singh  and  her  daughter
           Rano, Joginder’s  wife Bhajan Kaur and her three children  Bagga
           Singh, Phulvender and Gurmit Singh were sleeping  in  her  house
           and her husband was sleeping in the tubewell and a  lantern  was
           burning in the house and on hearing the  barking  of  dogs  they
           woke-up and saw group of people at the -gate  including   Kartar
           Singh and his four sons namely  Mahendra  Singh,  Lakkha  Singh,
           Ginder Singh and  Sindar  Singh  and  they  were  carrying  gun,
           country made pistol, axe and spade.  She also noticed among them
           the four sons of Sampuran Singh namely  appellants  Veer  Singh,
           Tahal Singh, Amreek Singh and   Kamir Singh  along  with  Balkar
           Singh armed with weapons and lathi  in the assembly, and out  of
           fear she and her family  members went into a room and bolted the
           door from inside.  Kartar Singh and Mahender  Singh  climbed  up
           the roof and started demolishing the  roof   and  threw  burning
           wood  from the roof. Kartar Singh was shouting aloud to his sons
           to finish off all the members of  family  of  Shisha  Singh  and
           Mohar Singh and not to allow anybody to escape alive. It is  her
           further testimony that when she and  the  other  family  members
           tried to escape, accused Kartar Singh,  Mahender  Singh,  Balkar
           Singh and Amreek Singh let loose  killing  spree  and  initially
           killed her daughter Rano, her daughter-in-law Bhajan  Kaur,  her
           sons Kulvendra and Gurpreet Singh and they  fired  gun-shots  on
           her which struck on her chest and accused  Sinder  attacked  her
           with an axe on her hand and mouth and her sons Jassa  Singh  and
           Joginder Singh were killed outside their -house when they  tried
           to run away.  She heard cries emanating from the house of  Mohar
           Singh and five persons of their family were also killed and  she
           ran to the field of paddy hiding herself where  she  met  Gurdip
           Singh,  Hazoor  Singh  and  Jaswant  Singh  and   narrated   the
           occurrence to them and sought their help to lodge the  complaint
           and Gurdip Singh along  with  Jaswant  Singh  proceeded  to  the
           Police Station.  She has further testified that she asked Hazoor
           Singh to go to the tubewell and inform  her  husband  about  the
           occurrence.  Hazoor Singh came back and  told  her  that  Shisha
           Singh and Mohar Singh were also hacked to death.



       12. From the above testimony it becomes evident  that PW  4  Harbans
           Kaur has witnessed the occurrence and also  sustained   grievous
           injuries.  Immediately  after  the  occurrence  in  the  morning
           itself Harbans Kaur was admitted in the hospital  for  treatment
           and information was sent to Magistrate for recording  her  dying
           declaration.  In the hospital she was examined by PW 6 Dr.  N.K.
           Sharma and he  noticed  8  injuries  on  her  body  and  he  has
           expressed opinion that the lacerated  wounds  could  have  -been
           caused by sharp-edged weapons and injury No.6  could  have  been
           caused by firearm. The injuries sustained by her were serious in
           nature. The SDM Shamli reached the hospital at  12.45  p.m.  and
           recorded her statement in  question-answer  form  and  only  one
           question was asked as to how she sustained the injuries and  she
           told that she was shot by Surender  Singh  in  the  presence  of
           other sons of Kartar Singh.  In other words the reply  pertained
           only to that part of the occurrence in which she was injured and
           not the entire occurrence.   In fact PW 4 Harbans  Kaur  in  her
           testimony before the Court has clearly stated as to why she  has
           given a limited answer to the Magistrate.  Further   it is not a
           dying declaration since she survived and it is only a  statement
           under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which can be used under Section
           157 of the  Evidence Act for the purpose  of  corroboration  and
           under Section 155 of the Act for the purpose  of  contradiction.
           This statement did not relate to the entire occurrence.  It must
           be borne in mind that she had witnessed the brutal murder of all
           her family members by the appellants and  other  accused  during
           the occurrence and when she was in  a  state  of  shock  in  the
           hospital she had given  answer  to  the  -question  put  by  the
           Magistrate. After regaining her health when she was examined  by
           the Investigation Officer, she has stated the entire  occurrence
           naming the assailants and the attack made by them with weapons.



       13. There is intrinsic evidence  available  on  record  which  lends
           credence to her testimony. The  occurrence  took  place  in  the
           midnight and  the  complaint  was  lodged  in  Jhinjhana  Police
           Station at 4.15 a.m. on 14.7.1984 without any loss of time.  The
           complainant Gurdip Singh was also murdered before the trial.  In
           the complaint Gurdip Singh has stated that  during  midnight  on
           the occurrence day he heard loud noise and screaming  from   the
           house of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh. He took up  his  licensed
           gun and moved towards the house of Shisha Singh with Jassa Singh
           and Hajoor Singh and saw  in the moon lit night and also in  the
           light  shed by the torch, Kartar  Singh  and  his  son  Mahender
           Singh  standing on the roof of Shisha Singh’s house  and  Kartar
           Singh loudly directed his  sons  to  wipe  off  all  the  family
           members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh  and  when  he  and  his
           fellows challenged, all of a sudden the assailants  opened -fire
           on them and he stepped back and it  was  at  that  time  injured
           Harbans Kaur who escaped from the occurrence place met him   and
           told him that  Kartar  Singh  and  his  sons  along  with  other
           accused have killed all the members of her family and  also  the
           family of Mohar Singh, and pleaded for help and  to  inform  the
           police.   After providing her  safety  he  went  to  the  Police
           Station and gave oral complaint which was reduced to writing and
           he appended his signature on it.



       14. The Head-Mouri of the Police Station Shri Inder Pal Sharma, PW14
           has recorded the oral complaint of Gurdip Singh  and  registered
           the FIR, Exh.Ka-18.  The extract  of  G.D.  is  Exh.Ka-19.   The
           names  of  assailants  including  the  names  of   the   present
           appellants are found mentioned in the complaint lodged by Gurdip
           Singh.   It is  also relevant to point out that  no  enmity   is
           attributed to Gurdip Singh against the assailants and  there  is
           no reason for him to falsely implicate  the  appellants  in  the
           case.



       15. Hazoor Singh has been examined as PW 5 and in his examination-in-
           chief he has stated that  on the occurrence night he  heard  the
           noise of firing coupled with screaming cries from the  house  of
           Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and he went to the house  of  Jassa
           Singh and both of them went to the house  of  Gurdip  Singh  who
           accompanied them by taking gun and torch and when they went near
           the house of Shisha Singh they saw several men and he could  not
           identify any of them and Harbans Kaur met them  there  and  told
           them that Kartar Singh and other assailants have attacked  them.
             At  this  point  of  time  he  was  declared  hostile  by  the
           prosecution and in the cross-examination he stated  that  Gurdip
           Singh had lodged the  complaint  about  the  occurrence  in  the
           Police Station and when Harbans Kaur narrated the occurrence, he
           was also present at the place and on the request of Harbans Kaur
           he went to the tubewell and found  Shisha Singh and Mohar  Singh
           lying dead and he informed Harbans Kaur about the same  and  she
           became unconscious.   It is settled law that  the  testimony  of
           the hostile witness need not  be  discarded  in  toto  and  that
           portion of testimony in the chief-examination which supports the
           prosecution case can be taken for consideration.  In the present
           case, in the examination-in-chief itself PW 5 Hazoor  Singh  has
           admitted about his going to -the place of occurrence along  with
           Gurdip Singh and Jaswant Singh on hearing the  noise  of  firing
           and cries emanating from the house of  Shisha  Singh  and  Mohar
           Singh and the narration of the occurrence  by  Harbans  Kaur  to
           them  which  led  to  lodging  of  the  complaint.    The  above
           testimony of PW 5 lends credence to the testimony of PW 4.



       16. The Investigation Officer    PW  18  S.J.  Mohd.  Akhtar,  after
           taking up the investigation went to  the  occurrence  place  and
           seized blood-stained materials and also went to the roof of  the
           house of Shisha Singh and took brick from the damaged  roof  and
           also ashes from the room, which have been marked as Exh.  Ka  40
           and 41, respectively.  This also lends credence to the testimony
           of PW 4 Harbans Kaur that the assailants damaged  the  roof  and
           threw burning wood inside the room during the occurrence.



       17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and  quality  of
           evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity  or  plurality  of
           witnesses.  It is not the number of witnesses  but  -quality  of
           their evidence which is important as  there  is  no  requirement
           under  the  Law  of  Evidence  that  any  particular  number  of
           witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact.   Evidence
           must be weighed and not counted.  It is quality and not quantity
           which determines the adequacy of evidence as has  been  provided
           under Section 134 of the Evidence Act.  As a  general  rule  the
           Court can and may act on  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness
           provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar and  Anr.
           vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju  @  Balachandran  vs.
           State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381;  Bipin  Kumar  Mondal  vs.
           State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh  and  Another  vs.
           State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626;  Prithipal  Singh  and
           ors. vs. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan  Chand
           vs. State of Haryana JT 2013 (1) SC 222  and  Gulam  Sarbar  vs.
           State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) -  2013 (12) SCALE 504).



       18. In the present case we are  left  with  the  sole  testimony  of
           injured eye-witness PW4 Harbans Kaur.   She  has  lost  all  the
           members of her family  in  the  attack  during  the  occurrence.
           -There is no reason for her to falsely  implicate   any  of  the
           accused in the case.  On the contrary she would only  point  out
           the correct assailants who  are  responsible   for  killing  her
           family  members.   We  are  of  the  considered  view  that  the
           testimony  of  PW4  Harbans  Kaur  is   cogent,   credible   and
           trustworthy and has a ring of  truth  and  deserves  acceptance.
           All the  12  victims  of  the  occurrence    died  of  homicidal
           violence is established by the oral testimony of the doctors who
           conducted autopsies on their bodies and the certificates  issued
           by them to that effect.



       19. There was also motive for the occurrence.  It is  the  testimony
           of the PW4 Harbans Kaur that her husband lent a sum of Rs.8000/-
           to Mahender Singh  son of Kartar Singh  8  years  prior  to  the
           occurrence and  he  was  avoiding  to  pay  back  which  created
           bitterness.  Besides the above, it  is  also  indicated  in  her
           testimony that Mahender Singh suspected that family  members  of
           Harbans Kaur had tipped  the  police  about  the  activities  of
           Mahender Singh which led to his arrest twice  by  the  Jhinjhana
           and Kairana Police. It is her further testimony that Mohar Singh
           has also lent some money to Mahender Singh  and  this  testimony
           -also finds support from the evidence of PW  9  Mukhtiyar  Singh
           son of Mohar Singh to the effect  that  Lakka  Singh  had  taken
           Rs.1600/- from Mohar Singh about 5  years  prior  to  occurrence
           which he had declined to pay despite repeated demands. Both  the
           above witnesses namely PW4 Harbans Kaur and PW9 Mukhtiyar  Singh
           have testified  that  Mahendro  sister  of  Mahender  Singh  had
           developed illicit  intimacy with Avtar  Singh  @  Pappu  son  of
           Mohar Singh and had  once outraged  her  modesty  which  led  to
           convening of a Panchayat and  decision  thereof.     Enraged  by
           this Mahender Singh wanted to take revenge and that has resulted
           in the occurrence.  In this context it is relevant to point  out
           that the appellants in their answers to  the  questions  put  to
           them during proceedings  under Section 313 Cr.P.C.in  the  trial
           have alleged that they have been falsely implicated in the  case
           on account of enmity.



       20. From the evidence  on  record  we  are  inclined  to  hold  that
           appellants along with  other  accused  armed  with  weapons  had
           committed trespass into the dwelling houses of Shisha Singh  and
           Mohar Singh during mid-night with a view  to  commit  murder  of
           -the family members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and  carried
           out  the  same.   The  High  Court  has  rightly  sustained  the
           conviction on the appellants and the sentence  awarded  to  them
           are also proper.



       21. We find no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed.




……………..………………………….J.
                                  (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)




                                  …………….……………………………J.
                                  (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi;
December   10 , 2013.





No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.